Kevin Kallaugher by Kevin Kallaugher

Kevin KallaugherNo Zoom

Comments (18) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. ODon

    ODon said, almost 3 years ago

    You keep us smiling.

  2. Enoki

    Enoki said, almost 3 years ago

    How’s that solar and wind power working out in Germany these days…?

  3. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, almost 3 years ago

    And it started as OUR technology, until Ronnie Reagan cut the legs out from under it. We could be the industry leader, instead of Germany and Japan…

  4. Enoki

    Enoki said, almost 3 years ago

    It’s worked out so well Germany is now building 25 new “clean” coal plants to make up for power shortages from Solar and shutting down their nuclear plants…
    .
    http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0716/The-dirty-coal-behind-Germany-s-clean-energy
    .
    And, when electricity becomes a luxury good then the inmates are running the insane asylum.
    .
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html

  5. Fourcrows

    Fourcrows said, almost 3 years ago

    DF -
    It is that type of attitude that prevents us from going forward technologically (and socially) in this country. Why use gas lamps when candles work just fine? Why use electric lights when gas lamps work just fine? Why move to wind or solar or any other energy source if coal works just fine?
    Every new technology needs time to develop and be perfected. Yes, moving towards solar or wind completely too soon can cost more money than staying with coal and oil, but not allowing companies to develop and perfect these technologies will cost more money in the long run. What happens when the accessible coal and oil are gone? Suppose your neighborhood is discovered to have coal or natural gas under it – do you move, or allow a company to put a mine in your backyard? Do you want to live in the same neighborhood as a coal mine or refinery?
    Solar and wind power are renewable sources that, when perfected, will eventually be able to handle most of our energy needs. At that point, people like you will complain and belittle those who are trying to make it more efficient, or cheaper, or perhaps those developing orbiting ion collection sails to transfer energy back to earth.

  6. Enoki

    Enoki said, almost 3 years ago

    @Fourcrows

    Solar will never work. The physics of it simply are against it and you… well Progressives like to ignore this… can’t change the physics of the universe.
    First there is the watt density of sunlight. You can never get more energy out than you put in.
    Next, is the fact that roughly half the time it’s dark and solar doesn’t produce any power at all and while the sun is up it produces on a bell curve of sorts reaching peak production only around local solar noon.
    Solar is also not dispatchable power. That is it cannot be relied on for base loads as there is no way to predict what the output will be at any given time.
    To get one 24 hour watt hour of power out of solar on average you have to install 5 watt hours of solar power production. That alone makes it incredibly expensive.
    .
    What would work is nuclear and moving to hydrogen as a portable fuel. Nuclear produces massive quantities of reliable power and hydrogen is a viable substitute for gasoline and diesel as a portable fuel.
    Neither requires massive changes in infrastructure to deliver. Neither needs wasted investment in a “smart grid” like solar and wind.
    And, yes, I’d gladly have a nuclear plant near my house built to current technology and US standards.
    Solar and wind will NEVER be “perfected” because you cannot change the laws of nature and physics. It’s that simple.

  7. warjoski

    warjoski GoComics PRO Member said, almost 3 years ago

    Didn’t you just make a comment on another thread about how you were going to try to step back from the ‘troll black hole’ or some such?

  8. PriusJockey

    PriusJockey said, almost 3 years ago

    @Enoki

    Meanwhile here in reality, my 3.5KW of ‘will never work’ solar has produced over 50MWH in the 6 years since installation. My savings have paid about 60% of the installation price and I expect breakeven at 10 years, halfway through the 20 year warranty.
    BTW, you do know that enoki is a type of mushroom, right?

  9. Enoki

    Enoki said, almost 3 years ago

    Did you pay full price for that installation or was it subsidized by the government?
    That also doesn’t work out to a very efficent install in terms of kW produced for the length of time being installed.
    .
    And yes, I know an Enoki is a tasty Japanese mushroom.

  10. cjr53

    cjr53 said, almost 3 years ago

    @PriusJockey

    Ohmigawd, it’s worse than I thought, not just a trollish troll, but there’s fungus amungus.

  11. PriusJockey

    PriusJockey said, almost 3 years ago

    @Enoki

    Between state and fed, the subsidy was about 30%. Nowhere near the billions they give big oil every year, but it helped. The average solar day here is 6 hours. In the summer, my electric bill is $300 lower than before.

  12. Enoki

    Enoki said, almost 3 years ago

    Let me start by rebutting the “…subsidizing BIG OIL…” argument, which by the way is a red herring and tu Quoque logical fallacy. That is it tries to redirect the argument to another industry receiving government special treatment and claim “…they get it too!” status, the classic tu quoque logical fallacy.
    .
    But, that aside the oil industry primarily gets “subsidized” the same way most industry does: Through tax treatment of various sorts.
    .
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/04/25/the-surprising-reason-that-oil-subsidies-persist-even-liberals-love-them/
    .
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2013/01/02/oil-gas-tax-provisions-are-not-subsidies-for-big-oil/
    .
    Even the Leftie environmentalists admit it grudgingly.
    .
    http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/07/oil-subsidies-natural-gas-subsidies/
    .
    Essentially, a good 90% of the “subsidies” are just standard tax accounting practice for any industry while the rest are not subsidies for “BIG OIL” but government programs that the oil companies don’t have any input into.

  13. ODon

    ODon said, almost 3 years ago

    Fulton’s Folly ring a bell?

  14. Fourcrows

    Fourcrows said, almost 3 years ago

    @Enoki

    A good post, and it proves the point I was making. 200 years ago, powered flight, automobiles, and electrical power were all impossible. They could not exist at that time. As scientists and visionaries developed new theories and technologies, all of these impossibilities became realities so commonplace we take for granted the scientific vision behind them.
    This is your shortcoming. You and people like you want to insist that technology is a its’ apex, that we will never replace oil or coal, and that alternative energies will never work. Your kind has always been proven wrong and always will be. Think about that as you type your response on a computer smaller than your house, transmitting it over an internet that didn’t exist 30 years ago.

  15. Enoki

    Enoki said, almost 3 years ago

    @Fourcrows

    Fourcrows, your response is unfortunately no answer to what I posted. How do you get around the basic laws of chemistry and physics?
    You cannot change the rotation rate of the Earth or the position of the Sun.
    You cannot change the watt density of sunlight striking the planet.
    You cannot change the laws of chemistry to make what is essentially a battery (PV cells are essentially batteries in terms of how they generate electricity) anything more than close to 100% efficent within those laws.
    .
    Solar has been around for decades as a system for generating electricity and for generating steam (hot water) even longer. Work today on solar focuses on trying to wring out more efficency from systems because you cannot increase the thermal efficency of such systems due to the limitations of watt density of sunlight.
    .
    Alternative energy systems like solar work as well as they are going to work right now. The problem is you cannot make them much more efficent than they already are.
    .
    On the other hand we can do that with nuclear. Fusion is better than fission. Fission plants can be greatly increased in efficency. Their watt density is massively greater than that of solar which is one reason they are a better bet. The other is that they are reliable in terms of output.
    .
    The same goes for portable energy. Hydrogen is the next best and most practical one. Battery powered cars are a technological dead end. You cannot get around the chemistry of batteries which is a settled technology.
    .
    No amount of wishing for otherwise on your part will change any of that. It isn’t that I am opposed to solar entirely. There are niches where it works well. But, I also know very well its limitations. One of those is that it is horribly inefficent as a commercial large scale energy source.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (3).